Suppose we have 2 options. Option A is objectively morally correct, option B is objectively morally incorrect. What are the prerequisites to picking option A and being held responsible for that choice?

1) Knowledge that A is correct2) Having the rational state of mind to pick the correct choice

But this produces a problem that will destroy all moral responsibility and all talk of heaven and hell. If an agent has both prerequisites prior to making the choice, then there is no other possible way than for him to pick option A. If he picked option B, then 1 or both of the prerequisites were missing....in which case, the agent cannot be held responsible since neither prerequisite is within his power to force.

If we were all consistently rational and consistently knowledgeable creatures, then immorality would be a logical impossibility. When ever we do something immoral, we either lacked the knowledge that it was immoral, or (more likely) we lacked the rational state of mind to ACT upon our knowledge,...both cases precluding moral responsibility.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 8/13/2012 11:08:58 PM, 000ike wrote:Suppose we have 2 options. Option A is objectively morally correct, option B is objectively morally incorrect. What are the prerequisites to picking option A and being held responsible for that choice?

1) Knowledge that A is correct2) Having the rational state of mind to pick the correct choice

But this produces a problem that will destroy all moral responsibility and all talk of heaven and hell. If an agent has both prerequisites prior to making the choice, then there is no other possible way than for him to pick option A. If he picked option B, then 1 or both of the prerequisites were missing....in which case, the agent cannot be held responsible since neither prerequisite is within his power to force.

If we were all consistently rational and consistently knowledgeable creatures, then immorality would be a logical impossibility. When ever we do something immoral, we either lacked the knowledge that it was immoral, or (more likely) we lacked the rational state of mind to ACT upon our knowledge,...both cases precluding moral responsibility.

At 8/13/2012 11:08:58 PM, 000ike wrote:Suppose we have 2 options. Option A is objectively morally correct, option B is objectively morally incorrect. What are the prerequisites to picking option A and being held responsible for that choice?

1) Knowledge that A is correct2) Having the rational state of mind to pick the correct choice

But this produces a problem that will destroy all moral responsibility and all talk of heaven and hell. If an agent has both prerequisites prior to making the choice, then there is no other possible way than for him to pick option A. If he picked option B, then 1 or both of the prerequisites were missing....in which case, the agent cannot be held responsible since neither prerequisite is within his power to force.

If we were all consistently rational and consistently knowledgeable creatures, then immorality would be a logical impossibility. When ever we do something immoral, we either lacked the knowledge that it was immoral, or (more likely) we lacked the rational state of mind to ACT upon our knowledge,...both cases precluding moral responsibility.

Keep thinking it is not your responsibility. I will pray for you.

Thanks, but save your time and energy. I intend on living a life free of fear of what is unknown and cannot be known. I insist on trusting rationality as a basis for belief. I refuse to donate my life to a human invention with no serious corroborating evidence beyond hearsay.

So, pray until you're satiated. No skin off my nose

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 8/13/2012 11:08:58 PM, 000ike wrote:Suppose we have 2 options. Option A is objectively morally correct, option B is objectively morally incorrect. What are the prerequisites to picking option A and being held responsible for that choice?

1) Knowledge that A is correct2) Having the rational state of mind to pick the correct choice

But this produces a problem that will destroy all moral responsibility and all talk of heaven and hell. If an agent has both prerequisites prior to making the choice, then there is no other possible way than for him to pick option A. If he picked option B, then 1 or both of the prerequisites were missing....in which case, the agent cannot be held responsible since neither prerequisite is within his power to force.

If we were all consistently rational and consistently knowledgeable creatures, then immorality would be a logical impossibility. When ever we do something immoral, we either lacked the knowledge that it was immoral, or (more likely) we lacked the rational state of mind to ACT upon our knowledge,...both cases precluding moral responsibility.

Keep thinking it is not your responsibility. I will pray for you.

Thanks, but save your time and energy. I intend on living a life free of fear of what is unknown and cannot be known. I insist on trusting rationality as a basis for belief. I refuse to donate my life to a human invention with no serious corroborating evidence beyond hearsay.

So, pray until you're satiated. No skin off my nose

I will pray. I pray for a these people as yourself who use logic as a basis for non-belief when serious corroborating evidence is thousands of years in the making. You- 150 years of man's logic. Me- thousands of years of testimony. What you fail to logically see is that your rationality comes from man-made teachings that are inferior to those that preceded them.

At 8/13/2012 11:08:58 PM, 000ike wrote:Suppose we have 2 options. Option A is objectively morally correct, option B is objectively morally incorrect. What are the prerequisites to picking option A and being held responsible for that choice?

1) Knowledge that A is correct2) Having the rational state of mind to pick the correct choice

But this produces a problem that will destroy all moral responsibility and all talk of heaven and hell. If an agent has both prerequisites prior to making the choice, then there is no other possible way than for him to pick option A. If he picked option B, then 1 or both of the prerequisites were missing....in which case, the agent cannot be held responsible since neither prerequisite is within his power to force.

If we were all consistently rational and consistently knowledgeable creatures, then immorality would be a logical impossibility. When ever we do something immoral, we either lacked the knowledge that it was immoral, or (more likely) we lacked the rational state of mind to ACT upon our knowledge,...both cases precluding moral responsibility.

Keep thinking it is not your responsibility. I will pray for you.

Thanks, but save your time and energy. I intend on living a life free of fear of what is unknown and cannot be known. I insist on trusting rationality as a basis for belief. I refuse to donate my life to a human invention with no serious corroborating evidence beyond hearsay.

So, pray until you're satiated. No skin off my nose

I will pray. I pray for a these people as yourself who use logic as a basis for non-belief when serious corroborating evidence is thousands of years in the making. You- 150 years of man's logic. Me- thousands of years of testimony. What you fail to logically see is that your rationality comes from man-made teachings that are inferior to those that preceded them.

So much irrationality in the way you think. Don't you see? If the UNCORROBORATED testimony of other people is enough to move you, then tell me what prevents you from being an easily manipulated sheep? What if your parents raised you in Scientology? You'd believe that too by your standards!

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

All that you said is true but there needs to be a relative pre-requisite that forces some to behave objectively morally while others not to. For example, just because there is an objective morality, it does not mean that everybody will follow it, despite there usually being no difference between the two pre-requisites that the individuals have. What I think is a third- and probably the most important need- is the fear of punishment or reprehension. If you have a deterrent, then you are more likely to act objectively morally, rather than immorally.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

So much irrationality in the way you think. Don't you see? If the UNCORROBORATED testimony of other people is enough to move you, then tell me what prevents you from being an easily manipulated sheep? What if your parents raised you in Scientology? You'd believe that too by your standards!

I am a sheep and the Lord is my Shepard. My testimonies are corroborated for thousands of years until today. There have been to many to number who have testified of Jesus. That is fact and your denial of that is anything but being rational. Now you dont have to believe it, In fact you dont, but there is no way at all you can sit there with any honesty and claim there is no evidence. The evidence is uncontainable. No you make a decision to refuse it because it conflicts with what you want to do and what you want to believe. My faith conflicts with what my fleshy desires wants but I try to overcome them through Jesus. You dont. You are nothing but a scientific modern indoctrined sheep...by your own standards.

At 8/13/2012 11:51:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:All that you said is true but there needs to be a relative pre-requisite that forces some to behave objectively morally while others not to. For example, just because there is an objective morality, it does not mean that everybody will follow it, despite there usually being no difference between the two pre-requisites that the individuals have. What I think is a third- and probably the most important need- is the fear of punishment or reprehension. If you have a deterrent, then you are more likely to act objectively morally, rather than immorally.

The punishment is the deterrent. You can not see the punishment so it is so easy to reject. But many would committ crimes if their was not punishment of jail. They dont do them because of jail that they will see and touch physically. Hell is not here to see or know so it is easliy looked as not real but that doesnt mean it isnt.

At 8/13/2012 11:51:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:All that you said is true but there needs to be a relative pre-requisite that forces some to behave objectively morally while others not to. For example, just because there is an objective morality, it does not mean that everybody will follow it, despite there usually being no difference between the two pre-requisites that the individuals have. What I think is a third- and probably the most important need- is the fear of punishment or reprehension. If you have a deterrent, then you are more likely to act objectively morally, rather than immorally.

The punishment is the deterrent. You can not see the punishment so it is so easy to reject. But many would committ crimes if their was not punishment of jail. They dont do them because of jail that they will see and touch physically. Hell is not here to see or know so it is easliy looked as not real but that doesnt mean it isnt.

K.

"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."

At 8/13/2012 11:08:58 PM, 000ike wrote:Suppose we have 2 options. Option A is objectively morally correct, option B is objectively morally incorrect. What are the prerequisites to picking option A and being held responsible for that choice?

1) Knowledge that A is correct2) Having the rational state of mind to pick the correct choice

But this produces a problem that will destroy all moral responsibility and all talk of heaven and hell. If an agent has both prerequisites prior to making the choice, then there is no other possible way than for him to pick option A. If he picked option B, then 1 or both of the prerequisites were missing....in which case, the agent cannot be held responsible since neither prerequisite is within his power to force.

If we were all consistently rational and consistently knowledgeable creatures, then immorality would be a logical impossibility. When ever we do something immoral, we either lacked the knowledge that it was immoral, or (more likely) we lacked the rational state of mind to ACT upon our knowledge,...both cases precluding moral responsibility.

Keep thinking it is not your responsibility. I will pray for you.

Thanks, but save your time and energy. I intend on living a life free of fear of what is unknown and cannot be known. I insist on trusting rationality as a basis for belief. I refuse to donate my life to a human invention with no serious corroborating evidence beyond hearsay.

So, pray until you're satiated. No skin off my nose

I will pray. I pray for a these people as yourself who use logic as a basis for non-belief when serious corroborating evidence is thousands of years in the making. You- 150 years of man's logic. Me- thousands of years of testimony. What you fail to logically see is that your rationality comes from man-made teachings that are inferior to those that preceded them.

Hmm... You've never heard of Socrates, Aristotle or Plato, have you? And you do realize exactly how condescending it is to self-righteously announce that you will 'pray for someone,' right? How very... Christian of you.

So much irrationality in the way you think. Don't you see? If the UNCORROBORATED testimony of other people is enough to move you, then tell me what prevents you from being an easily manipulated sheep? What if your parents raised you in Scientology? You'd believe that too by your standards!

I am a sheep and the Lord is my Shepard. My testimonies are corroborated for thousands of years until today. There have been to many to number who have testified of Jesus. That is fact and your denial of that is anything but being rational. Now you dont have to believe it, In fact you dont, but there is no way at all you can sit there with any honesty and claim there is no evidence. The evidence is uncontainable. No you make a decision to refuse it because it conflicts with what you want to do and what you want to believe. My faith conflicts with what my fleshy desires wants but I try to overcome them through Jesus. You dont. You are nothing but a scientific modern indoctrined sheep...by your own standards.

At least you're loving, caring and humble about it as your religion demands. At least you back up your arguments with fact and sources on a debate site rather than wild claims. At least you realize that the intellectual superiors (pharisees) of the time period in question overwhelmingly condemned Jesus' claim. At least you aren't giving all Christians a bad name.

At 8/13/2012 11:51:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:All that you said is true but there needs to be a relative pre-requisite that forces some to behave objectively morally while others not to. For example, just because there is an objective morality, it does not mean that everybody will follow it, despite there usually being no difference between the two pre-requisites that the individuals have. What I think is a third- and probably the most important need- is the fear of punishment or reprehension. If you have a deterrent, then you are more likely to act objectively morally, rather than immorally.

The punishment is the deterrent. You can not see the punishment so it is so easy to reject. But many would committ crimes if their was not punishment of jail. They dont do them because of jail that they will see and touch physically. Hell is not here to see or know so it is easliy looked as not real but that doesnt mean it isnt.

So you don't do wrong, because you're scared of what will happen to you. You are not motivated by doing right for the sake of doing right, but you do it for fear. How noble.

At 8/13/2012 11:51:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:All that you said is true but there needs to be a relative pre-requisite that forces some to behave objectively morally while others not to. For example, just because there is an objective morality, it does not mean that everybody will follow it, despite there usually being no difference between the two pre-requisites that the individuals have. What I think is a third- and probably the most important need- is the fear of punishment or reprehension. If you have a deterrent, then you are more likely to act objectively morally, rather than immorally.

The punishment is the deterrent. You can not see the punishment so it is so easy to reject. But many would committ crimes if their was not punishment of jail. They dont do them because of jail that they will see and touch physically. Hell is not here to see or know so it is easliy looked as not real but that doesnt mean it isnt.

So you don't do wrong, because you're scared of what will happen to you. You are not motivated by doing right for the sake of doing right, but you do it for fear. How noble.

Exzactly...I do not want to spend eternity in a lake of fire. I also do it because a God chose to be crucified for me.

So much irrationality in the way you think. Don't you see? If the UNCORROBORATED testimony of other people is enough to move you, then tell me what prevents you from being an easily manipulated sheep? What if your parents raised you in Scientology? You'd believe that too by your standards!

I am a sheep and the Lord is my Shepard. My testimonies are corroborated for thousands of years until today. There have been to many to number who have testified of Jesus. That is fact and your denial of that is anything but being rational. Now you dont have to believe it, In fact you dont, but there is no way at all you can sit there with any honesty and claim there is no evidence. The evidence is uncontainable. No you make a decision to refuse it because it conflicts with what you want to do and what you want to believe. My faith conflicts with what my fleshy desires wants but I try to overcome them through Jesus. You dont. You are nothing but a scientific modern indoctrined sheep...by your own standards.

At least you're loving, caring and humble about it as your religion demands. At least you back up your arguments with fact and sources on a debate site rather than wild claims. At least you realize that the intellectual superiors (pharisees) of the time period in question overwhelmingly condemned Jesus' claim. At least you aren't giving all Christians a bad name.

So much irrationality in the way you think. Don't you see? If the UNCORROBORATED testimony of other people is enough to move you, then tell me what prevents you from being an easily manipulated sheep? What if your parents raised you in Scientology? You'd believe that too by your standards!

I am a sheep and the Lord is my Shepard. My testimonies are corroborated for thousands of years until today. There have been to many to number who have testified of Jesus. That is fact and your denial of that is anything but being rational. Now you dont have to believe it, In fact you dont, but there is no way at all you can sit there with any honesty and claim there is no evidence. The evidence is uncontainable. No you make a decision to refuse it because it conflicts with what you want to do and what you want to believe. My faith conflicts with what my fleshy desires wants but I try to overcome them through Jesus. You dont. You are nothing but a scientific modern indoctrined sheep...by your own standards.

At least you're loving, caring and humble about it as your religion demands. At least you back up your arguments with fact and sources on a debate site rather than wild claims. At least you realize that the intellectual superiors (pharisees) of the time period in question overwhelmingly condemned Jesus' claim. At least you aren't giving all Christians a bad name.

So much irrationality in the way you think. Don't you see? If the UNCORROBORATED testimony of other people is enough to move you, then tell me what prevents you from being an easily manipulated sheep? What if your parents raised you in Scientology? You'd believe that too by your standards!

I am a sheep and the Lord is my Shepard. My testimonies are corroborated for thousands of years until today. There have been to many to number who have testified of Jesus. That is fact and your denial of that is anything but being rational. Now you dont have to believe it, In fact you dont, but there is no way at all you can sit there with any honesty and claim there is no evidence. The evidence is uncontainable. No you make a decision to refuse it because it conflicts with what you want to do and what you want to believe. My faith conflicts with what my fleshy desires wants but I try to overcome them through Jesus. You dont. You are nothing but a scientific modern indoctrined sheep...by your own standards.

At least you're loving, caring and humble about it as your religion demands. At least you back up your arguments with fact and sources on a debate site rather than wild claims. At least you realize that the intellectual superiors (pharisees) of the time period in question overwhelmingly condemned Jesus' claim. At least you aren't giving all Christians a bad name.

At 8/13/2012 11:51:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:All that you said is true but there needs to be a relative pre-requisite that forces some to behave objectively morally while others not to. For example, just because there is an objective morality, it does not mean that everybody will follow it, despite there usually being no difference between the two pre-requisites that the individuals have. What I think is a third- and probably the most important need- is the fear of punishment or reprehension. If you have a deterrent, then you are more likely to act objectively morally, rather than immorally.

The punishment is the deterrent. You can not see the punishment so it is so easy to reject. But many would committ crimes if their was not punishment of jail. They dont do them because of jail that they will see and touch physically. Hell is not here to see or know so it is easliy looked as not real but that doesnt mean it isnt.

So you don't do wrong, because you're scared of what will happen to you. You are not motivated by doing right for the sake of doing right, but you do it for fear. How noble.

Exzactly...I do not want to spend eternity in a lake of fire. I also do it because a God chose to be crucified for me.

The Fool: But then you do not do it for THE GOOD.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 8/13/2012 11:08:58 PM, 000ike wrote:Suppose we have 2 options. Option A is objectively morally correct, option B is objectively morally incorrect. What are the prerequisites to picking option A and being held responsible for that choice?

1) Knowledge that A is correct2) Having the rational state of mind to pick the correct choice

But this produces a problem that will destroy all moral responsibility and all talk of heaven and hell. If an agent has both prerequisites prior to making the choice, then there is no other possible way than for him to pick option A. If he picked option B, then 1 or both of the prerequisites were missing....in which case, the agent cannot be held responsible since neither prerequisite is within his power to force.

If we were all consistently rational and consistently knowledgeable creatures, then immorality would be a logical impossibility. When ever we do something immoral, we either lacked the knowledge that it was immoral, or (more likely) we lacked the rational state of mind to ACT upon our knowledge,...both cases precluding moral responsibility.

Keep thinking it is not your responsibility. I will pray for you.

Thanks, but save your time and energy. I intend on living a life free of fear of what is unknown and cannot be known. I insist on trusting rationality as a basis for belief. I refuse to donate my life to a human invention with no serious corroborating evidence beyond hearsay.

So, pray until you're satiated. No skin off my nose

Wow dude, that's harsh. If I were an anti-theist like you I'd have simply thanked him for his concern, instead of kicking the guy in the nerts. But hey, you can't be held responsible for being an arrogant prick, right??

At 8/13/2012 11:08:58 PM, 000ike wrote:Suppose we have 2 options. Option A is objectively morally correct, option B is objectively morally incorrect. What are the prerequisites to picking option A and being held responsible for that choice?

1) Knowledge that A is correct2) Having the rational state of mind to pick the correct choice

But this produces a problem that will destroy all moral responsibility and all talk of heaven and hell. If an agent has both prerequisites prior to making the choice, then there is no other possible way than for him to pick option A. If he picked option B, then 1 or both of the prerequisites were missing....in which case, the agent cannot be held responsible since neither prerequisite is within his power to force.

If we were all consistently rational and consistently knowledgeable creatures, then immorality would be a logical impossibility. When ever we do something immoral, we either lacked the knowledge that it was immoral, or (more likely) we lacked the rational state of mind to ACT upon our knowledge,...both cases precluding moral responsibility.

Keep thinking it is not your responsibility. I will pray for you.

Thanks, but save your time and energy. I intend on living a life free of fear of what is unknown and cannot be known. I insist on trusting rationality as a basis for belief. I refuse to donate my life to a human invention with no serious corroborating evidence beyond hearsay.

So, pray until you're satiated. No skin off my nose

Wow dude, that's harsh. If I were an anti-theist like you I'd have simply thanked him for his concern, instead of kicking the guy in the nerts. But hey, you can't be held responsible for being an arrogant prick, right??

Right, because it's not arrogant to tell an atheist he's going to hell, ASSUME god exists, and then pray for him in some display of religious posturing.

You're the prick for opening your mouth without first understanding both people's perspectives on the comment. So shut up.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 8/13/2012 11:08:58 PM, 000ike wrote:Suppose we have 2 options. Option A is objectively morally correct, option B is objectively morally incorrect. What are the prerequisites to picking option A and being held responsible for that choice?

1) Knowledge that A is correct2) Having the rational state of mind to pick the correct choice

But this produces a problem that will destroy all moral responsibility and all talk of heaven and hell. If an agent has both prerequisites prior to making the choice, then there is no other possible way than for him to pick option A. If he picked option B, then 1 or both of the prerequisites were missing....in which case, the agent cannot be held responsible since neither prerequisite is within his power to force.

If we were all consistently rational and consistently knowledgeable creatures, then immorality would be a logical impossibility. When ever we do something immoral, we either lacked the knowledge that it was immoral, or (more likely) we lacked the rational state of mind to ACT upon our knowledge,...both cases precluding moral responsibility.

Keep thinking it is not your responsibility. I will pray for you.

Thanks, but save your time and energy. I intend on living a life free of fear of what is unknown and cannot be known. I insist on trusting rationality as a basis for belief. I refuse to donate my life to a human invention with no serious corroborating evidence beyond hearsay.

So, pray until you're satiated. No skin off my nose

Wow dude, that's harsh. If I were an anti-theist like you I'd have simply thanked him for his concern, instead of kicking the guy in the nerts. But hey, you can't be held responsible for being an arrogant prick, right??

Right, because it's not arrogant to tell an atheist he's going to hell, ASSUME god exists, and then pray for him in some display of religious posturing.

You're the prick for opening your mouth without first understanding both people's perspectives on the comment. So shut up.

I never tell people they are going to Hell. I do let them know what can send you there. There is no assumptions..........Youre only a disgruntled soul who is displeased with a certain authority and it shows.

Wow dude, that's harsh. If I were an anti-theist like you I'd have simply thanked him for his concern, instead of kicking the guy in the nerts. But hey, you can't be held responsible for being an arrogant prick, right??

By the way, I hope you realize that telling an atheist that you will pray for him is a disingenuous action. On one side, you make it look some righteous act of kindness.

On the other, you're tacitly mocking his beliefs, dismissing it, and assuming he'll go to hell for having a free-thinking mind.

I find it a little disgusting that you didn't think about it for long enough to see that.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 8/13/2012 11:51:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:All that you said is true but there needs to be a relative pre-requisite that forces some to behave objectively morally while others not to. For example, just because there is an objective morality, it does not mean that everybody will follow it, despite there usually being no difference between the two pre-requisites that the individuals have. What I think is a third- and probably the most important need- is the fear of punishment or reprehension. If you have a deterrent, then you are more likely to act objectively morally, rather than immorally.

The punishment is the deterrent. You can not see the punishment so it is so easy to reject. But many would committ crimes if their was not punishment of jail. They dont do them because of jail that they will see and touch physically. Hell is not here to see or know so it is easliy looked as not real but that doesnt mean it isnt.

The Fool: To be a Good person is to do Good for the sake of The Good. Not because fear forces you too. That is why Christanity creates immorality.

1. It keeps telling you that you are not good, weak and helpless on your own.

2. It threatens to do the most un imaginable Horrors to you if you don't Obay. That is not Moral. That is mental SLAVERY!!.

3. If God does what he pleases that mean he IS PLEASURED BY YOUR SUFFERING OF OTHER FOR ETERNITY. That is HORRIBLE!

4. This is done from his JEALOSY of you worshiping other Gods. If he is the only God then either he is lying or Just plain evil. There is no love in that.

5. Because people start to believe that they are no Good and Bad my nature, it actualy justifies evil actions because they can always repent and say well I couldnt help my naturally evil sinning human ways.

6. It doesn't matter if there is the odd Good notion because there are also very evil notions, there is no official interpretation of GOD. Anybody could interpret anything in thier own way.

7. There does not exist freedom if someone points a gun at you head to do something. Christianity is doing WORSE then that!

8. If God is Good. That you can never learn what is THE GOOD in itlself. Because you are taught one and the same.

9. Sending his son which is also him is completly irrational in the first place, and still is a completly immoral principle to teach any CHILD EVER.

10. If God in infnitly power full then he never sacrificed ANYTHING! It would be completly insignificant for him.

The Fool posts these propositions on the DOOR OF THE CHURCH!!!!!! with a hammer and nail. Bang.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

Wow dude, that's harsh. If I were an anti-theist like you I'd have simply thanked him for his concern, instead of kicking the guy in the nerts. But hey, you can't be held responsible for being an arrogant prick, right??

By the way, I hope you realize that telling an atheist that you will pray for him is a disingenuous action. On one side, you make it look some righteous act of kindness.

On the other, you're tacitly mocking his beliefs, dismissing it, and assuming he'll go to hell for having a free-thinking mind.

I find it a little disgusting that you didn't think about it for long enough to see that.

No...I see that for sure and is exzactly why I will pray for you because if I do not then the truth will always elude you. I pray for you to be wise and your eyes open. But like you display you are just to ignorant for that yet. And so I pray for you.

At 8/13/2012 11:51:29 PM, Lordknukle wrote:All that you said is true but there needs to be a relative pre-requisite that forces some to behave objectively morally while others not to. For example, just because there is an objective morality, it does not mean that everybody will follow it, despite there usually being no difference between the two pre-requisites that the individuals have. What I think is a third- and probably the most important need- is the fear of punishment or reprehension. If you have a deterrent, then you are more likely to act objectively morally, rather than immorally.

The punishment is the deterrent. You can not see the punishment so it is so easy to reject. But many would committ crimes if their was not punishment of jail. They dont do them because of jail that they will see and touch physically. Hell is not here to see or know so it is easliy looked as not real but that doesnt mean it isnt.

The Fool: To be a Good person is to do Good for the sake of The Good. Not because fear forces you too. That is why Christanity creates immorality.

1. It keeps telling you that you are not good, weak and helpless on your own.

2. It threatens to do the most un imaginable Horrors to you if you don't Obay. That is not Moral. That is mental SLAVERY!!.

3. If God does what he pleases that mean he IS PLEASURED BY YOUR SUFFERING OF OTHER FOR ETERNITY. That is HORRIBLE!

4. This is done from his JEALOSY of you worshiping other Gods. If he is the only God then either he is lying or Just plain evil. There is no love in that.

5. Because people start to believe that they are no Good and Bad my nature, it actualy justifies evil actions because they can always repent and say well I couldnt help my naturally evil sinning human ways.

6. It doesn't matter if there is the odd Good notion because there are also very evil notions, there is no official interpretation of GOD. Anybody could interpret anything in thier own way.

7. There does not exist freedom if someone points a gun at you head to do something. Christianity is doing WORSE then that!

8. If God is Good. That you can never learn what is THE GOOD in itlself. Because you are taught one and the same.

9. Sending his son which is also him is completly irrational in the first place, and still is a completly immoral principle to teach any CHILD EVER.

10. If God in infnitly power full then he never sacrificed ANYTHING! It would be completly insignificant for him.

The Fool posts these propositions on the DOOR OF THE CHURCH!!!!!! with a hammer and nail. Bang.

The Fool: Am I not speaking the TRUTH!? Name just one thing I said that was wrong. Just ONE!!

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

Wow dude, that's harsh. If I were an anti-theist like you I'd have simply thanked him for his concern, instead of kicking the guy in the nerts. But hey, you can't be held responsible for being an arrogant prick, right??

By the way, I hope you realize that telling an atheist that you will pray for him is a disingenuous action. On one side, you make it look some righteous act of kindness.

On the other, you're tacitly mocking his beliefs, dismissing it, and assuming he'll go to hell for having a free-thinking mind.

I find it a little disgusting that you didn't think about it for long enough to see that.

That is not an act of being disingenious. It is about trying to help you overcome the wool that has blinded your eyes to the truth.You do not wish to see the truth because you have issues of trust and resentfulness.Something has happened in the past, and now you are angry about it.

Wow dude, that's harsh. If I were an anti-theist like you I'd have simply thanked him for his concern, instead of kicking the guy in the nerts. But hey, you can't be held responsible for being an arrogant prick, right??

By the way, I hope you realize that telling an atheist that you will pray for him is a disingenuous action. On one side, you make it look some righteous act of kindness.

On the other, you're tacitly mocking his beliefs, dismissing it, and assuming he'll go to hell for having a free-thinking mind.

I find it a little disgusting that you didn't think about it for long enough to see that.

No...I see that for sure and is exzactly why I will pray for you because if I do not then the truth will always elude you. I pray for you to be wise and your eyes open. But like you display you are just to ignorant for that yet. And so I pray for you.

Such arrogance!

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

The Fool: To be a Good person is to do Good for the sake of The Good. Not because fear forces you too. That is why Christanity creates immorality.

Fear doesnt force me....It is just a part. You obviously missed the post where I stated that Jesus Christ dies for me.

1. It keeps telling you that you are not good, weak and helpless on your own.

Yes that is correct.

2. It threatens to do the most un imaginable Horrors to you if you don't Obay. That is not Moral. That is mental SLAVERY!!.

No it is truth because that is what will happen and like you are not mentally enslaved by the worlds view today.

3. If God does what he pleases that mean he IS PLEASURED BY YOUR SUFFERING OF OTHER FOR ETERNITY. That is HORRIBLE!

EXAMPLE....

4. This is done from his JEALOSY of you worshiping other Gods. If he is the only God then either he is lying or Just plain evil. There is no love in that.

No you create God's to replace HIM. Doesnt mean they are God's to him but you.

5. Because people start to believe that they are no Good and Bad my nature, it actualy justifies evil actions because they can always repent and say well I couldnt help my naturally evil sinning human ways.

Not what the scriptures say at all. Prove it...

6. It doesn't matter if there is the odd Good notion because there are also very evil notions, there is no official interpretation of GOD. Anybody could interpret anything in thier own way.

No there is only one interpretation and that is through the Holy Ghost.

7. There does not exist freedom if someone points a gun at you head to do something. Christianity is doing WORSE then that!

Christianity offers salvation.....wheres the gunn....

8. If God is Good. That you can never learn what is THE GOOD in itlself. Because you are taught one and the same.

Have no idea what you are saying here

9. Sending his son which is also him is completly irrational in the first place, and still is a completly immoral principle to teach any CHILD EVER.

Your opinion which BTW is not correct Biblically

10. If God in infnitly power full then he never sacrificed ANYTHING! It would be completly insignificant for him.

It is insignifiant to Him. It is significant for us. God doesnt need salvation we do.

God cannot logically or morally judge a person by what they don't know. So goes the thought that insofar as a person chooses what seems to be right over what seems to be wrong, then they are making, for all they know, a righteous choice.